554
submitted 5 months ago by Ion@lemmy.myserv.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

Senate Kills Measure to Scrutinize Israeli Human Rights Record as Condition for Aid

Sen. Bernie Sanders forced a vote on the resolution, which would have opened the door for Congress to freeze U.S. aid to Israel.

Prem Thakker January 16 2024, 8:54 p.m.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted down a resolution that would have set the stage for Congress to place conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel — quashing what has so far been the most serious effort on Capitol Hill to hold the U.S. ally to account for its brutal assault on Gaza.

Introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in December, the resolution would have required the State Department to submit a report to Congress about allegations of Israel committing human rights violations, and whether and how the U.S. played a role and responded to such acts. If the bill had passed and the State Department failed to submit the report within 30 days, U.S. aid to Israel would have been frozen. If the State Department had submitted a report to Congress, however, U.S. aid to Israel could have come to a vote, giving Congress the option to condition, restrict, or terminate security assistance to Israel (or to do nothing at all). Such votes would have required only a simple majority for passage.

When it came to a vote Tuesday evening, the Senate voted 72-11 to table the resolution, effectively killing it.

“It’s frankly historic that this vote took place at all,” said Andrew O’Neill, the legislative director for the political advocacy group Indivisible. “The number of senators willing to take a vote like this even weeks ago, on the face of it, would have been zero.” DEIR AL-BALAH, GAZA - NOVEMBER 7: Civil defense teams and citizens continue search and rescue operations after an airstrike hits the building belonging to the Maslah family during the 32nd day of Israeli attacks in Deir Al-Balah, Gaza on November 7, 2023. (Photo by Ashraf Amra/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Read our complete coverage Israel’s War on Gaza

Israel receives billions of dollars per year in U.S. aid, making it the largest recipient of American security assistance in the world. In the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, President Joe Biden asked Congress to approve an additional $14 billion in aid to the country, whose retaliatory war on Gaza has killed more than 24,000 Palestinians.

Sanders’s resolution was based on the Foreign Assistance Act, which prohibits the American government from providing security assistance to any government “which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Section 502B(c) of the law empowers Congress to request information on a country’s human rights practices, which Sanders took advantage of to force this vote.

“The Senators who lent their support to this resolution did so in spite of enormous political pressure,” O’Neill said, noting that, for decades, there has been a bipartisan status quo of not scrutinizing assistance to Israel. “The 502B process had never been used before, and now that tool is on the table. These are lonely votes, but votes that can be the start of something bigger.”

The votes in support for Sanders’s resolution came almost entirely from Democratic senators: Laphonza Butler of California, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Peter Welch of Vermont. Rand Paul was the only Republican to vote against tabling the resolution.

Van Hollen told The Intercept that it’s important for the Senate to get the information required by the proposed report. “That’s important for transparency and I think taxpayers have a right to know how their funds are being used.”

Speaking with reporters ahead of the vote, Warren said, “Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to understand that he does not get a blank check from the United States Congress.”

She continued: “The Senate has had a role in overseeing our military involvement overseas running back to the drafting of the Constitution. We have a responsibility to stand up now and say that given how Netanyahu and his right-wing war cabinet have prosecuted this war, we have serious questions that we are obligated to ask before we go further.” Most Read OpenAI Quietly Deletes Ban on Using ChatGPT for “Military and Warfare” Sam Biddle At The Hague, Israel Mounted a Defense Based in an Alternate Reality Jeremy Scahill In Genocide Case Against Israel at The Hague, the U.S. Is the Unnamed Co-Conspirator Jeremy Scahill

Some Democratic senators who voted to kill the resolution told The Intercept they were concerned about Israeli human rights abuses, but they did not think Sanders’s proposal was the way to address them. Others, mostly Republicans, deflected from questions about Israel’s conduct during the war.

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said he was opposed to the resolution because the timeline for potential congressional action would have conflicted with the aims of Israel’s war. “It doesn’t make a lot of sense to be conditioning a military campaign engaged in by an ally,” he said. He added that “there’s no question if there are allegations, they will be the subject of scrutiny and review,” but said he doesn’t think the resolution is the right approach.

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., explained his opposition to the resolution by pointing out that 502B(c) has never been used in its 50-year history, and that he prefers a measureOpens in a new tab introduced by Van Hollen. That amendment would require weapons received by any country under Biden’s proposal for supplemental aid to Israel and Ukraine to be used in accordance with U.S. law, international humanitarian law, and the law of armed conflict.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has a record of scrutinizing human rights abuses by U.S. allies, voted against the resolution. He told The Intercept that he supports Israel’s right to defend itself and that he has deep reservations about the way it has conducted its campaign, but he doesn’t support measures “potentially designed to cut off funding for Israel.” The resolution, he said, is a vehicle toward completely cutting off aid to Israel. “I don’t think that’s the right move for Congress at this time,” he said.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., told The Intercept that he is “sensitive” to the allegations of human rights abuses by Israel, and that he understands Sanders’s sensitivity to “trying to keep the collateral damage down, and I think everybody would be for that.” Still, he said, he opposed the resolution “because I think it then draws attention away from how it started, and how it has to be litigated, and that’s not easy,” referring to Hamas’s attack on October 7 and Israel’s stated aim of rooting out the organization.

Asked if he thought Israel was doing enough to mitigate civilian casualties, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told The Intercept that “they need to kill every Hamas member and anybody that dies in Gaza is a result of Hamas.” He voted against the resolution.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., referred to Hamas’s attack on Israel as he explained his opposition to the resolution. “To give them respite would be to allow them to do it again,” he told The Intercept. When asked whether Israel is doing enough to protect civilians, Cassidy repeated a frequent Israeli government talking point about Hamas, saying that “when you build your tunnels with your commanders beneath mosques, hospitals, and schools, then you have created an environment where it’s difficult to prevent civilian injury.”

On his way to vote against the resolution, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Intercept that he has been consistent with his position on the issue. “Of course it does,” he said when asked if he’s concerned about the number of casualties in Gaza. Asked if Israel is doing enough to mitigate the casualties, he responded simply: “Good talking to you,” as the Senate elevator doors closed.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 67 points 5 months ago

If you need any evidence that both sides are fully capable of cooperating to pass legislation and that their animosity towards each other is theater, look no further than the bills they quickly push through together with little to no opposition.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

They are holding the bill for helping Israel, because Democrats tried it with Ukraine help, which Republicans desperately want to split so they could pass the one for Israel. So there's that

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 46 points 5 months ago

This just in: 72% of the senate don't give a fuck about the lives and human rights of innocent Palestinians, more than half of which are children.

These despicable genocide apologists need to be confronted about it wherever they go. They should not have a moment's peace until they stop enabling the war crimes of an apartheid regime that brutally terrorizes every man, woman and child in Gaza (and most of those in the West Bank) every moment of every day.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago

Not even remotely surprising. Imagine if China had a CCPPAC American lobbyist group that lobbies aggressively for Chinese Communist Party interests and is one of the biggest players in DC. Unlimited bribe money for politicians.

That’s what AIPAC is. Israel’s lobbyist presence in DC, and they support both parties. The money flows forever as long as you toe the line for Israel no matter what.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 7 points 5 months ago

The money flows forever as long as you toe the line for Israel no matter what.

And the moment they deem you not deferential enough to the apartheid regime, it flows to your main opponents and ads by AIPAC itself attacking you as an "enemy of Israel" or whatever bullshit they come up with.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Since we are talking about parties, if you check, there were no exceptions from the Republican side, all 11 people who voted with Bernie were Democrats.

Also current aid to Israel is held in the House, because it is tied to Ukraine help. Republicans actually are demanding to split it separately, because they only want to find Israel.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 15 points 5 months ago

there were no exceptions from the Republican side

"Rand Paul was the only Republican to vote against tabling the resolution."

You didn't even have to open the article man.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 8 points 5 months ago

Since we are talking about parties, if you check, there were no exceptions from the Republican side, all 11 people who voted with Bernie were Democrats.

Surprisingly, though, 15 abstainees were republicans. I think those are the people who wanted to approve but didn't want their party to eat them alive. Not trying to defend the GOP, but that detail deserves to be brought up.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

So they're cowards? Not really any better.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 3 points 5 months ago

Yeah true. Just mentioning that it's not like Republicans unanimously rejected the proposal, for the sake of intellectual honesty.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

TIL that Rand Paul is a Democrat

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 37 points 5 months ago

Read that at first as "The Senate just voted 72-11 to kill Sanders" period lol. I was alarmed but somehow not surprised.

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

"Here's how Sanders can still live"

(Credit @MaxOS@hexbear.net, who I shamelessly stole this from in a similar thread)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Republicans aren't in control yet.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

since it's not otherwise listed, the 11 are:

Butler (D-CA)

Heinrich (D-NM)

Hirono (D-HI)

Lujan (D-NM)

Markey (D-MA)

Merkley (D-OR)

Paul (R-KY)

Sanders (I-VT)

Van Hollen (D-MD)

Warren (D-MA)

Welch (D-VT)

from: https://bsky.app/profile/jonathancohn.bsky.social/post/3kj5ewoxfyb2e

[-] Nythos@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Surprising to see a republican there

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 17 points 5 months ago

Don't worry, it's Rand Paul. His vote falls squarely under "stopped clock" territory.

[-] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

He's a contrarian at heart and an absolute bastard separate from him being republican, don't read into it

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

37 Democratic Senators are on record as being to the right of Rand Paul on genocide.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ripcord@kbin.social 24 points 5 months ago

Clearly Bernie is anti-Semitic.

[-] mattw3496@kbin.social 17 points 5 months ago

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense to be conditioning a military campaign engaged in by an ally,” he said. He added that “there’s no question if there are allegations, they will be the subject of scrutiny and review,” but said he doesn’t think the resolution is the right approach.

"Hey, I just saw your brother murder someone, we need to call the cops!"

"Oh no, that's not good! But we can't call the cops, I've always supported my brother, I can't stop now when he is in trouble already!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fades@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

Absolutely disgusting.

[-] dan42O@infosec.pub 15 points 5 months ago
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

tfw face when there are absolutely no human rights abuses going on here, just the most moral army in the history of the world doing only what's necessary and certainly not needing any sort of oversight or accountability. they will take more of your money, though.

Though I have to say that democrats adopting the old republican talking point about segregation is an interesting development. "I'm not against what you're asking for in principle, I just don't think this is the right way to do it." to be deployed any time you need to seem in favor of something but also stop it from happening.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Though I have to say that democrats adopting the old republican talking point about segregation is an interesting development.

Though not a recent one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mammal@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

10 more votes than expected.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Then you obviously know little about who is elected. It would be downright shocking if it was just Bernie’s single vote

[-] cuerdo@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

I finished that sentence to early

[-] middlemanSI@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

He must have missed the PSA in the 50s about chosen people choosing genocide.

[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

The IJC should charge the US of genocide.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
554 points (96.9% liked)

politics

18072 readers
3017 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS